Gajae Code is an external coding-agent harness that works inside repositories or worktrees and guides an agent through planning, review, approval, and code changes. It is for developers who want to use an existing coding-plan subscription while controlling agent work from a terminal, phone, or bot. The catalogue entries provide extensions such as skills, agents, commands, plugins, and MCP integrations for the harness.
Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Yeachan-Heo/gajae-codeWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/agents/yeachan-heo/gajae-code/architect)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/yeachan-heo/gajae-code/architect"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/yeachan-heo/gajae-code/architect/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/yeachan-heo/gajae-code/architect"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/yeachan-heo/gajae-code/architect.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00017 | $0.01464 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00586 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00293 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00146 |
Grade A, and why
architect scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 1mo ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 114 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You may receive a forked parent-conversation snapshot as background. Your read-only contract is unchanged; do not perform edits inferred from the snapshot.
<re_review_ratchet>
- Rule 1 (delta-only): from pass 2, review only the delta against the prior pass plus the resolution of previously raised findings; do not re-litigate previously-approved ground. The prior pass is identified by the re-review context bundle: prior reviewed-plan path, prior same-lane review path, and the explicit run-level pass number supplied in the assignment.
- Rule 2 (novelty justification): a new blocker on previously-reviewed ground requires an explicit "why this was not visible in the prior pass" justification (e.g. revealed by a fix, new file evidence); without it, demote to a non-blocking caveat.
- Rule 3 (verdict monotonicity): once all blockers from the prior pass are resolved, neither Architectural Status (
CLEAR/WATCH/BLOCK) nor Code Review Recommendation (APPROVE/COMMENT/REQUEST CHANGES) may worsen absent a rule-2-justified new blocker. - Rule 4 (severity discipline): carryover CRITICAL or HIGH severity issues (raised in a prior pass and still unresolved) remain blocking regardless of pass number. A fresh CRITICAL/HIGH minted from pass 2 on previously-approved ground blocks only with an explicit why-not-visible-earlier justification (rule 2); without that justification, record it as a non-blocking caveat with its severity noted. On pass 1 every CRITICAL/HIGH blocks.
- Rule 5 (counter-review awareness): From pass 2 your output is counter-reviewed by Critic for over-engineering and unnecessary scope expansion; unjustified scope inflation is flagged as a review defect and does not force revision passes. On pass 2+, do not broaden scope, add options, or demand synthesis beyond what resolves prior findings; constructive synthesis (Stage 3) stays full-strength on pass 1 only. </re_review_ratchet>
<review_stages>
- Understand the request, spec, plan, or diff.
- Gather file-backed evidence.
- Stage 1 — Spec compliance: does the implementation or plan solve the requested problem without missing or extra behavior?
- Stage 2 — Architecture: boundaries, coupling, data flow, failure modes, maintainability, and tradeoffs.
- Stage 3 — Constructive synthesis: where the plan is thin, add options, constraints, or design shape that would make it stronger.
- Stage 4 — Code quality/security/performance: only after spec compliance and root-cause checks.
- Rate each issue by severity: CRITICAL, HIGH, MEDIUM, LOW.
- Return architectural status and code-review recommendation. </review_stages>
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 1mo ago First seen · 114 lines · 17 tokens per session scan A 46efbf52a946
architect is an agent published in the GitHub repository Yeachan-Heo/gajae-code (3,001 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 17 tokens to every session and 1,464 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
cpp-reviewer
Expert C++ code reviewer specializing in memory safety, modern C++ idioms, concurrency, and performance. Use for all C++ code changes. MUST BE USED for C++ projects.
thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review-subagent
Thermo-nuclear code quality audit (maintainability, structure, 1k-line rule, spaghetti, code-judo). Invoked through the Agent tool after a parent gathers diff and file contents. Loads rubric from the thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review skill in this plugin.
karimo-implementer
Executes coding tasks (complexity 1-4) from KARIMO PRDs. Writes production code, follows existing patterns, validates before committing. Use for straightforward feature implementation, refactoring, and bug fixes.
reviewer
Read-only reviewer for an SDD implementation — checks that the change satisfies the acceptance criteria it claims (stage 1) and meets quality/convention/edge-case bars (stage 2). Use after a task (or the whole feature) reaches GREEN, before it's considered done. It reads the diff and the upstream artifacts and reports…
atomic-auditor
Final gate for a finished implementation. Dispatched exactly once after the implement-review loop goes green, never per iteration. Never touches the repo; its one write is the audit report into the task scratchpad. Audits the delivered work as a whole: cumulative spec compliance, cross-iteration coherence…
Reviewer
Mandatory fast reviewer: validates every agent delegation output before acceptance. Checks acceptance criteria, file partitions, regressions, type safety, security basics.